So the directors didn't have to chuck in a couple of million quid last year to ensure the project went ahead?

I certainly don't recall that being reported - as you seem so sure, perhaps you could give me a link that shows the directors put in cash over and above what was always planned to be invested in the scheme? Has it crossed your mind that the directors always planned to put cash into the stadium project? Why does the equity conversion signify a project funding shortfall?

I certainly don't recall that being reported - as you seem so sure, perhaps you could give me a link that shows the directors put in cash over and above what was always planned to be invested in the scheme? Has it crossed your mind that the directors always planned to put cash into the stadium project? Why does the equity conversion signify a project funding shortfall?

July 10th 2009

It was reported that the Saints Directors had to inject £1.75m in order to provide evidence of financial soundness. Here's what Eamonn McManus said: "This is a necessary step to achieve and evidence financial soundness for the club before we contribute to the total project financing cost of the stadium".

Or in other words somebody doesn't believe our figures stack up so we have to put some cash in.

Or in other words somebody doesn't believe our figures stack up so we have to put some cash in.

Meanwhile back in the real world what actually happened was £1.35million of directors’ loans were converted into new shares and £400,000 raised through new equity to strengthen the club's balance sheet prior to the raising of finance, rather than to address a funding shortfall, just as I said. The stronger the balance sheet at the time finance is sought, the better the terms on which the club can borrow.

The fact that EMM clearly states this was done before the contribution to the total project financing cost shows it had nothing to do with an unforeseen shortfall in funding (as you were trying to imply was the reason for delays through some particularly random thought processes and imaginings).

Meanwhile back in the real world what actually happened was £1.35million of directorsí loans were converted into new shares and £400,000 raised through new equity to strengthen the club's balance sheet prior to the raising of finance, rather than to address a funding shortfall, just as I said. The stronger the balance sheet at the time finance is sought, the better the terms on which the club can borrow.

The fact that EMM clearly states this was done before the contribution to the total project financing cost shows it had nothing to do with an unforeseen shortfall in funding (as you were trying to imply was the reason for delays through some particularly random thought processes and imaginings).

The club couldn't afford the stadium without a cash injection. End of.

The timing was curious as well, the club, along with others, had recently had the warning from the RFL about stadia.

The directors had to bite the bullet to get the thing moving, they were willing to drift along in a vain hope that someone would come up with some money until the RFL put the squeeze on.

you keep believing the press releases and leave the figuring out of the truth to the big boys.

The truth like you saying:

So the directors didn't have to chuck in a couple of million quid last year to ensure the project went ahead?

When in truth £1.35m of cash already invested by the directors in previous years was simply converted to shares in the balance sheet rather than shown as loans. That is fact, I'm a shareholder and I get the accounts. Just for you - THIS CONVERSION DID NOT INVOLVE A PENNY OF EXTRA CASH BEING PAID BY THE DIRECTORS AND IS A PAPER TRANSACTION.

Enjoy renting from the Latics for the remainder of your existence - if they want you there for that long.

So the directors didn't have to chuck in a couple of million quid last year to ensure the project went ahead?

When in truth £1.35m of cash already invested by the directors in previous years was simply converted to shares in the balance sheet rather than shown as loans. That is fact, I'm a shareholder and I get the accounts. Just for you - THIS CONVERSION DID NOT INVOLVE A PENNY OF EXTRA CASH BEING PAID BY THE DIRECTORS AND IS A PAPER TRANSACTION.

So why do it, if it wasn't to paper over the flakey finances. Timing as well project stalled, RFL give Saints kick up ######, Saints must do something about flakey finances quick to convince RFL project will go ahead.

So why do it, if it wasn't to paper over the flakey finances. Timing as well project stalled, RFL give Saints kick up ######, Saints must do something about flakey finances quick to convince RFL project will go ahead.

The truth is out there.

Like I said keep feeding on the press releases.

Why has there been an 8 month delay in the project by the way?

Padge is the Pope still Catholic if he's a Saint? I imagine your answer would be no.You've been shown to have little inside knowledge or an understanding of equity yet you carp on.

For a little over a year now the funding has been in place. Anyone going to tender would not rush such an important contract, only a fool would take the first offer. I too have had my doubts but now there is actually a builder in place I see no reason to doubt.

Also you mention that the directors were happy to let the whole thing rumble along, I think you'll find the opposite is true. Knowsley Road is loss making by some £100,000's each year. The directors wanted out a long time ago.

At first they had to convince the fans, which was no mean feat as with it's obvious errors the fans did still like it 10 years ago. Only now they have seen better have they backed the board. There was also the small problem of council backing which did not really get behind the club until the Labour party lost overall control of the council and had to share power resulting in the stadium taking higher billing on the local scene than the polititians previously gave it. Finally there was the financial side which EMM has been developing for some years. If he had a Whelan in the cupboard, or a council like in Hull, then I'm sure he would have offered a seat on the board and more to get the finance quicker. As it was he did not so he and the board have had to pull funding from verious sources whilst each year pouring money down the hole of knowsley road to the tune of £250,000 a year.

Now you maybe daft but surely you can see that no man wants to give away £250,000 a year with no hope of a return. Of course they want a return and that's what the new stadium promises, a profit.

I think the board where the very last people in or outside of St. Helens willing to drag their heels on this project.If you are going to accuse anyone of not wanting this project there are a few people to aim at but the Saints board ain't it.

And I am a convert, I thought and still think they acted incorrectly over the Milward sacking, it could have been done a lot tidier without the hullabaloo, and without the fans protests and the loss of the league that year. But Unlike some saints fans I can admit they did it for the good of the club as I think EMM has nothing but the good of the club in mind.

Padge is the Pope still Catholic if he's a Saint? I imagine your answer would be no.You've been shown to have little inside knowledge or an understanding of equity yet you carp on.

For a little over a year now the funding has been in place. Anyone going to tender would not rush such an important contract, only a fool would take the first offer. I too have had my doubts but now there is actually a builder in place I see no reason to doubt.

Also you mention that the directors were happy to let the whole thing rumble along, I think you'll find the opposite is true. Knowsley Road is loss making by some £100,000's each year. The directors wanted out a long time ago.

At first they had to convince the fans, which was no mean feat as with it's obvious errors the fans did still like it 10 years ago. Only now they have seen better have they backed the board. There was also the small problem of council backing which did not really get behind the club until the Labour party lost overall control of the council and had to share power resulting in the stadium taking higher billing on the local scene than the polititians previously gave it. Finally there was the financial side which EMM has been developing for some years. If he had a Whelan in the cupboard, or a council like in Hull, then I'm sure he would have offered a seat on the board and more to get the finance quicker. As it was he did not so he and the board have had to pull funding from verious sources whilst each year pouring money down the hole of knowsley road to the tune of £250,000 a year.

Now you maybe daft but surely you can see that no man wants to give away £250,000 a year with no hope of a return. Of course they want a return and that's what the new stadium promises, a profit.

I think the board where the very last people in or outside of St. Helens willing to drag their heels on this project.If you are going to accuse anyone of not wanting this project there are a few people to aim at but the Saints board ain't it.

And I am a convert, I thought and still think they acted incorrectly over the Milward sacking, it could have been done a lot tidier without the hullabaloo, and without the fans protests and the loss of the league that year. But Unlike some saints fans I can admit they did it for the good of the club as I think EMM has nothing but the good of the club in mind.

I don't necessarily agree with all your conspiracies about the St. Helens stadium move, but from previous experience of the tender process for major construction projects - 8 months is not a reasonable time period that can justify the delay. I've been involved in bigger and more complex projects that post planning permission have completed construction tender within 8 weeks.

There does appear to be a bit of smoke and mirrors regarding the funding of the project over the last year than covered by the press releases, but thats not unexpected in the current economic climate. At the end of the day I don't think that most Saints fans will bother as long as they are in the new stadium by 2012 which is looking all the more likely now. It's just a shame that some have to troll about Wigan's situation (which has no relevance whatsoever and is an arrangement that our club appear content with) rather than rely on the significant positives for their club.

I don't necessarily agree with all your conspiracies about the St. Helens stadium move, but from previous experience of the tender process for major construction projects - 8 months is not a reasonable time period that can justify the delay. I've been involved in bigger and more complex projects that post planning permission have completed construction tender within 8 weeks.

There does appear to be a bit of smoke and mirrors regarding the funding of the project over the last year than covered by the press releases, but thats not unexpected in the current economic climate. At the end of the day I don't think that most Saints fans will bother as long as they are in the new stadium by 2012 which is looking all the more likely now. It's just a shame that some have to troll about Wigan's situation (which has no relevance whatsoever and is an arrangement that our club appear content with) rather than rely on the significant positives for their club.

The time for assigning the contractor would have already have been factored in, there is a missing eight months.

Its must be worth putting a time line together of events, statements promises and actualities. Not that I would ever go to the trouble of doing such a thing.

Such a time line may show an announcement that they were going out to tender and then nothing, zero, zilch until the RFL start throwing threats about and then lo and behold McMannus and friends have to convert loans to shares and pump in a huge chunk of cash to ensure they have the funding to keep up their end of the bargain since nobody else was coming forward to plug the gap. They obviously put the club up as collateral but they financers felt they were being sold short i.e Saints had overvalued themselves (or someone had).

If anyone would want to conduct such an excercise to see how many coincidences their are I am sure it would be interesting.

The time for assigning the contractor would have already have been factored in, there is a missing eight months.

Its must be worth putting a time line together of events, statements promises and actualities. Not that I would ever go to the trouble of doing such a thing.

Such a time line may show an announcement that they were going out to tender and then nothing, zero, zilch until the RFL start throwing threats about and then lo and behold McMannus and friends have to convert loans to shares and pump in a huge chunk of cash to ensure they have the funding to keep up their end of the bargain since nobody else was coming forward to plug the gap. They obviously put the club up as collateral but they financers felt they were being sold short i.e Saints had overvalued themselves (or someone had).

If anyone would want to conduct such an excercise to see how many coincidences their are I am sure it would be interesting.

at least wigan can give saints some tips as to being tennants instead of owning their own ground. there but for the grace of dave whelan go the pies.

"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.